The Law doesn't matter if the kid's a prodigy?

[chillzero]

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\General-Entertainment\20080812\Blues-Kid.xml&cat=entertainment&subcat=&pageid=1 (http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews%5CGeneral-Entertainment%5C20080812%5CBlues-Kid.xml&cat=entertainment&subcat=&pageid=1)


An anonymous e-mail sent to state officials complained that Tallan was too young to perform in taverns and nightclubs because of state child labor laws. His booking agent even got an anonymous letter threatening her with death if she keeps booking him.
When Tallan's father read him the state's letter saying he couldn't play clubs anymore (he can still play festivals), the boy's response -- like his music -- seemed beyond his years.
"He goes, 'It's not how many times you get knocked down but it's how many times you get back up and go forward,' Carl Latz said his son told him. "And I told him that's exactly what this is all about and if nothing else this letter just taught you a life lesson."
The lesson can be stiff: Each day he performs, the employer can be fined $25 to $1,000 and the parent from $10 to $250.
Jennifer Ortiz of the state Equal Rights Division said her agency has a responsibility to enforce the law once it becomes aware of a violation.
"Well, the law prohibits it, and the Legislature enacted the laws to protect the health, safety and welfare of all children."
What, exactly, would be the problem with getting the kid some legal gigs, that other kids his age could come see, and that wouldn't lead to potential prosecution for the various people involved? It's not that anyone is trying to stop him from playing (although there's an implication about a jealous musician). I just don't understand why they are calling to change the law to allow one child to play bars and adult venues instead of just getting the kid booked in venues he can play at.

[richardm]

Presumably there are many more pubs and clubs that are prepared to pay to have him than the alternative places.

I note that it's "labor laws" that he's fallen foul of, not just that he's too young to be in a place where alcohol was served. Given that, I'd have thought that those laws would be intended to prevent children working for the bar - serving drinks, clearing tables, whatever. Since he's providing entertainment which is not illegal per se under these rules (since he can still play festivals) I'd have thought that yeah, perhaps the law shouldn't apply.

[tkingdoll]

Not sure that 'talent' is justification for letting an 8 year old in a bar. They're adult venues. Is smoking allowed?

Maybe during the day. Some bars allow families before 6pm, for example.

Would it be OK if the kid really really enjoyed sweeping chimneys? "Mommy I wanna!" is not usually a very good reason for letting a child work.

[Cleon]

Not sure that 'talent' is justification for letting an 8 year old in a bar. They're adult venues. Is smoking allowed?

Maybe during the day. Some bars allow families before 6pm, for example.

Would it be OK if the kid really really enjoyed sweeping chimneys? "Mommy I wanna!" is not usually a very good reason for letting a child work.

He stole your gig, didn't he? :p

[rwguinn]

I wonder if the Packers will have any kids singing the National Anthem this year?
Maybe they should be reported in advance?

And how about those kids in MS and HS bands, where the band/school gets compensation for appearance?

Because in reading the article and others about him, it seems that its the LABOR laws, not the venues, that are the problem.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I just don't understand why they are calling to change the law to allow Negroes to sit anywhere they like on the bus instead of just getting the Negroes to sit in the seats they can sit in.

[chillzero]

I don't understand this.

I don't condone the club owner being threatened at all.

However, the law states that children cannot play gigs in these clubs and bars. I firstly don't understand how a business owner agrees to hire someone too young to work legally in their venue in the first place. I don't see why it's an issue to book the kid at venues where he can play legally - those places listed above by rwguinn clearly don't have that issue, so I fail to see the point you're making there. The issue is not the same as the racist laws either, do I don't see the point MdC is trying to make either. Child labour laws, and the laws about children in clubs and bars are not archaic. My daughter meets the same problems at the age of 16 as a band photographer. We don't demand the law be changed to allow her access to bars while underage.

And ... if there aren't other venues that he can play at and gain an audience - then perhaps it isn't him that is the pull? If he's that fantastic, and everyone wants to go see him, then he should have absolutely no problem getting booked in legal venues - particularly after this kind of exposure.

So, to go back to my original question - why should the law be changed, just because one particular child has more talent than most?

[Marquis de Carabas]

The issue is not the same as the racist laws either, do I don't see the point MdC is trying to make either.
I'll spell it out, then: the fact that someone prohibited something by law has options permitted by law that you deem to be equivalent is irrelevant. The question is is the law right?

How many people are prohibited from something by a law is also irrelevant. If there was but one black person in a jurisdiction, it would still not be right to prohibit him sitting where he likes on the bus. The question remains is the law right?

Further, it cannot be sensibly argued that the law only affects this one kid. The law applies to any child. Hence, a reversal of the law would apply to all kids, not be an exception for just one.

To sum up, is the law right? If you feel it is, fine. Defend the law. Don't attack the reason the law is called into question.

[chillzero]

I'll spell it out, then: the fact that someone prohibited something by law has options permitted by law that you deem to be equivalent is irrelevant. The question is is the law right?

How many people are prohibited from something by a law is also irrelevant. If there was but one black person in a jurisdiction, it would still not be right to prohibit him sitting where he likes on the bus. The question remains is the law right?

Further, it cannot be sensibly argued that the law only affects this one kid. The law applies to any child. Hence, a reversal of the law would apply to all kids, not be an exception for just one.

To sum up, is the law right? If you feel it is, fine. Defend the law. Don't attack the reason the law is called into question.

Well, I think the laws are sensible in this regard, actually (from a UK basis - not sure how similar they are, but to prevent children working in environments designed for adults to get drunk in seems sensible to me).

I understand that a reversal affects all children - that's why I question changing it just because of one.

When there's a demand to change a law for one single exception, just because of one child, I think that yes - it's entirely appropriate to question why someone wants to change it, and whether there's a need to or not. If this was a regular issue that occurred frequently and was having some kind of clear detrimental effect then I could see the sense in revisiting it. To want the law changed because .... well ... they don't really make it clear why other than because they want to ... doesn't make sense to me. As I said, no one wants him to stop playing - he just needs to do it it according to the same avenues that are available to any other performers his age.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, I think the laws are sensible in this regard, actually (from a UK basis - not sure how similar they are, but to prevent children working in environments designed for adults to get drunk in seems sensible to me).
Then that's where the focus of your argument should be. Why is it a good thing (and maybe it is, I dunno) to keep kids from playing in bars?

ETA: Or, conversely, why is it a bad thing to allow them to play there?

I understand that a reversal affects all children - that's why I question changing it just because of one.
Because of just the one you've heard about.

When there's a demand to change a law for one single exception, just because of one child, I think that yes - it's entirely appropriate to question why someone wants to change it, and whether there's a need to or not.
But how is someone's motive for desiring the change relevant to whether the law is right?

If this was a regular issue that occurred frequently and was having some kind of clear detrimental effect then I could see the sense in revisiting it. To want the law changed because .... well ... they don't really make it clear why other than because they want to ... doesn't make sense to me.
Why does the frequency matter? Again, if there was only one black person in a jurisdiction, it would still be wrong to force them to the back of the bus, right? As for motives, I'm sure they just want to make more money, but the motives are still ireelvant. The question is still is the law right?

As I said, no one wants him to stop playing - he just needs to do it it according to the same avenues that are available to any other performers his age.
And no one wants Rosa Parks to quit riding the bus. She just needs to do it in the same seats that are available to the other Negroes.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Is smoking allowed?
Googling around tells me that Chicago bars (and pretty much all other indoor areas) are smoke-free. One of our resident Chicagoans may be able to confirm or deny.

[chillzero]

I read this article. It gave no reason as to why they feel the law is wrong. They don't make any argument about the rights and wrongs. They just state that the law should be changed.... because this one child is a guitar hero. That was the focus of my OP, and the reason I raised the discussion.

I regularly see calls for changes to laws because one person is being inconvenienced, and no other reason supploed as to what the problem is with the law other than their inconvenience. No discussion as to whether the law is right or wrong - it just impacts that one individual. That was the slant of my argument, and this was just an example that caught my eye today.

I don't disagree that the laws around black rights were insufficient, and I think you are extrapolating my example to a completely different scenario that doesn't apply here. There were many more people than Rosa Parks fighting for black rights, for many many years, and those laws were basic and obvious infringements of human rights. There's a difference between the suppression of an entire race, and laws designed to protect children from exploitation and unsuitable environments - second hand smoke, drunks, late nights, long hours ....

[Loss Leader]

What, exactly, would be the problem with getting the kid some legal gigs, that other kids his age could come see, and that wouldn't lead to potential prosecution for the various people involved?


My guess is: 1) there's more money and prestige in playing clubs than in playing festivals; and 2) eight year-old children don't want to listen to blues music no matter who is playing it.


It's not that anyone is trying to stop him from playing (although there's an implication about a jealous musician). I just don't understand why they are calling to change the law to allow one child to play bars and adult venues instead of just getting the kid booked in venues he can play at.


Who are they? The article mentioned that the child's father had asked the state legislature for help. There's no indication at all that anyone else cares or that the legislature is even the least bit interested in the issue. Plenty of people ask the government to pass all kinds of laws; most are politely ignored. I see no reason why this merits any attention absent some indication that the state may act on it.

[Drudgewire]

Googling around tells me that Chicago bars (and pretty much all other indoor areas) are smoke-free. One of our resident Chicagoans may be able to confirm or deny.

If so it's a new law. I started smoking again last time I was in Chicago because everyone around me at the bar was. :(

[Marquis de Carabas]

I read this article. It gave no reason as to why they feel the law is wrong. They don't make any argument about the rights and wrongs. They just state that the law should be changed.... because this one child is a guitar hero. That was the focus of my OP, and the reason I raised the discussion.
The default assumption when an American is bitching about a law which prohibits something is that they believe the forbidden activity is harmless. They are, in effect, asking why should there be a law against this?


I don't disagree that the laws around black rights were insufficient, and I think you are extrapolating my example to a completely different scenario that doesn't apply here. There were many more people than Rosa Parks fighting for black rights, for many many years, and those laws were basic and obvious infringements of human rights.
So? Once again, the numbers mean diddly. Whether one or a one billion people campaign against a law has no bearing.

There's a difference between the suppression of an entire race, and laws designed to protect children from exploitation and unsuitable environments - second hand smoke, drunks, late nights, long hours ....
Certainly there's a difference. I wasn't comparing this the two. I was comparing the arguments. I used a stupid argument against civil rights that paralleled what I deemed a stupid argument against changing this law. The fact that this kid could play elsewhere has as much bearing on whether he should be allowed to play bars as the fact that black people could sit elsewhere had on whether they should be able to sit in the front of the bus.

As to protecting the child from your examples of harm, Chicago bars appear to be smoke-free; is the risk of exploitation, late nights and long hours really greater than playing festivals? If so, isn't managing the kid's schedule a parental, rather than governmental concern? Do children require more protection from drunks than would be provided by the security personnel the bar/club already has? If so, is this a reason to ban such performances outright or just to demand better security for them?

[chillzero]

I regularly see calls for changes to laws because one person is being inconvenienced, and no other reason supploed as to what the problem is with the law other than their inconvenience. No discussion as to whether the law is right or wrong - it just impacts that one individual. That was the slant of my argument, and this was just an example that caught my eye today.


....added to the fact that nobody waited for the law to be changed. They just decided to completely ignore it, flaunt the regulations on child labour, and employ the kid anyway. That's why I chose the title as I did. The law is ignored,.... just because the kid's good at something?

[chillzero]

As to protecting the child from your examples of harm, Chicago bars appear to be smoke-free; is the risk of exploitation, late nights and long hours really greater than playing festivals? If so, isn't managing the kid's schedule a parental, rather than governmental concern? Do children require more protection from drunks than would be provided by the security personnel the bar/club already has? If so, is this a reason to ban such performances outright or just to demand better security for them?


OK, I guess those are all good points.

My main annoyance, which I certainly don't seem to have put very well, was made in my last post (when I finally twigged what I'd omitted). Getting the law changed (while it irks me people cry for it regularly on minimal basis) is fair enough. However... this law was broken and ignored, and doesn't even seem to be being upheld by those responsible for checking it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If so it's a new law. I started smoking again last time I was in Chicago because everyone around me at the bar was. :(
When were you there? If it was this year, apparently the place was in violation (or, perhaps was a private club).

Source (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?contentOID=536958459&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Business+Affairs+and+Licensing%2F2007%2F I+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Business+Affairs+and+Licensing&deptMainCategoryOID=-536896159)

ETA: I should read my own links, I guess. Apparently, even private clubs are smoke-free in Chicago.

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK, I guess those are all good points.

My main annoyance, which I certainly don't seem to have put very well, was made in my last post (when I finally twigged what I'd omitted). Getting the law changed (while it irks me people cry for it regularly on minimal basis) is fair enough. However... this law was broken and ignored, and doesn't even seem to be being upheld by those responsible for checking it.
Breaking, ignoring, and flaunting laws are great ways to catalyze an effort to change the law.

Of course, they are also great ways to land yourself in a heap of trouble.

That said, I agree that the agency in charge of enforcing the law should be doing its job. Either that or publicly and vocally refusing to do it in an effort to effect a change in the law if they feel it is wrong. Simply ignoring it is not the way to go.

[Drudgewire]

When were you there? If it was this year, apparently the place was in violation (or, perhaps was a private club).

Source (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?contentOID=536958459&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Business+Affairs+and+Licensing%2F2007%2F I+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Business+Affairs+and+Licensing&deptMainCategoryOID=-536896159)


It was the hotel bar at the Westin. This was back in 2006 so the laws have likely changed since then.

[chillzero]

Breaking, ignoring, and flaunting laws are great ways to catalyze an effort to change the law.

Of course, they are also great ways to land yourself in a heap of trouble.

Yup, which doesn't actually appear to be happening.

That said, I agree that the agency in charge of enforcing the law should be doing its job. Either that or publicly and vocally refusing to do it in an effort to effect a change in the law if they feel it is wrong. Simply ignoring it is not the way to go.

Absolutely.

[gumboot]

In New Zealand children are allowed on a premises that serves alcohol as long as they are escorted by a parent or legal guardian. They cannot, of course, be sold alcohol.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Would the next logical step be trying to remove laws that prevent the child from performing in a strip club?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Would the next logical step be trying to remove laws that prevent the child from performing in a strip club?
I seriously doubt it, since current social mores deem exposing children to nudity to be far worse than exposing them to the consumption of alcohol. Janet Jackson's nipple sent the nation into a tizzy. The stadium full of drunken fans is par for the course.

[tkingdoll]

I've flashed my hooters in a bar :P

[Drudgewire]

I've flashed my hooters in a bar :P

What bar lets you bring in owls? :confused:

[Marquis de Carabas]

I've flashed my hooters in a bar :P
I doubt that.

I'm sure it wasn't just in one.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Oh but all the popular well paying gigs are in the strip clubs!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh but all the popular well paying gigs are in the strip clubs!
And?

[NoZed Avenger]

Would the next logical step be trying to remove laws that prevent the child from performing in a strip club?


Only if you are stepping onto a very slippery slope.

[The Painter]

Let the kid play. He seems to be a real talent. Should we stop prodigies from playing a gig if it’s past 8:00pm? No more Lincoln Center or Carnegie Hall for piano prodigies. Most child labor laws don’t let kids work at night. Beethoven would have been SOL. Mozart get away from the piano and go to bed. Sorry King it’s past his bedtime.

The laws were intended to prevent abuse of kids by unscrupulous employers. Long hours and unsafe conditions. The kid is in entertainment, not slaving over a sewing machine somewhere. It seems some jealous musician dropped a dime on the kid. Not cool. I wonder if the Beatles and The Rolling Stones were underage when they started playing in clubs. Have his parent with him and I don’t see a problem with it.

Kids his age are not into the Blues. They’re into Hanna Montana. A venue where kids his age go is what? Chucky Cheese?

Child labor laws are necessary but there are exceptions. This is one of them.

[calebprime]

Let the kid play. He seems to be a real talent. Should we stop prodigies from playing a gig if it’s past 8:00pm? No more Lincoln Center or Carnegie Hall for piano prodigies. Most child labor laws don’t let kids work at night. Beethoven would have been SOL. Mozart get away from the piano and go to bed. Sorry King it’s past his bedtime.

The laws were intended to prevent abuse of kids by unscrupulous employers. Long hours and unsafe conditions. The kid is in entertainment, not slaving over a sewing machine somewhere. It seems some jealous musician dropped a dime on the kid. Not cool. I wonder if the Beatles and The Rolling Stones were underage when they started playing in clubs. Have his parent with him and I don’t see a problem with it.

Kids his age are not into the Blues. They’re into Hanna Montana. A venue where kids his age go is what? Chucky Cheese?

Child labor laws are necessary but there are exceptions. This is one of them.


agreed.

I used to play with a bar band when I was 13, 14, 15. (13! that's only three years older than my kid is now, and no way is he ready to play in a bar!)

The bars (all 4 of them in town) and the frats all served me liquor, too.

But those were better times... '71, '72, '73.

My father let me go, though he did insist I bring a decibel meter. Lucky I can still hear without problems, actually.

I was glad to be able to be under the radar of law enforcement, etc.

I needed some kind of challenge and I wasn't going to get it in school.

None of the musicians I knew would have been uncool enough to tattle on me...

Kid sounds better than I was. Similar story here in the Boston area with Monster Mike.

(The basic technique of blues/rock is not that hard, so youngish kids can pick it up quickly. It's having something to say that is really rare. I didn't, really.)

[tkingdoll]

The laws were intended to prevent abuse of kids by unscrupulous employers. Long hours and unsafe conditions. The kid is in entertainment, not slaving over a sewing machine somewhere.

Snork, tell that to Michael Jackson :D

Child labor laws are necessary but there are exceptions. This is one of them.

Hmm. Exceptions to laws? Hmm...

[Beerina]

Anonymous e-mail sent to state officials complained that Tallan was too young to perform in taverns and nightclubs because of state child labor laws. His booking agent even got an anonymous letter threatening her with death if she keeps booking him.


God damn socially backward-ass Middle Eastern countries with their 13th century oppression and idiocy. :mad:


I swear to god, :mad: !



The state of Wisconsin

Oh. I, uh.


Oh.

[jj]

Well, my guess is that the law does apply, there are similar laws in many places.

The question, of course, is if it's proper to restrain this boy from persuing a career, which is what this is turning in to.

I can see both sides here. There is more to be learned before anyone can tell if this is a harm or a help to the kid. He jammed with Les Paul!?!?!? My goodness, depriving him of that ought to be a crime, but I don't know the situation he played with Les Paul in, so ... Again, we don't know enough. Ditto Jackson Browne, not that I am much of a fan for running on empty or anything.

Is it proper to deprive a school kid of the right to learn his craft? That's really what this comes down to. I'd say that answering "yes" here leads to very bad precedent.

The whole "prodigy" thing is really a red herring.

[tkingdoll]

Is it proper to deprive a school kid of the right to learn his craft? That's really what this comes down to. I'd say that answering "yes" here leads to very bad precedent.



So does saying 'yes', because you then have to allow any kid to do what they want regardless of the law, as long as they say "oh but I really want to do this for a living when I grow up, honest!"

[jj]

So does saying 'yes', because you then have to allow any kid to do what they want regardless of the law, as long as they say "oh but I really want to do this for a living when I grow up, honest!"

Really, now, any kid gets to jam with Les Paul?

Face it, most kids haven't a clue what they want to be, and couldn't pull off even the appearance, let alone the performance.

Your dismissal of "regardless of the law" is not, in fact, what I said, in fact it constitutes a very offensive straw man close to the kind of baiting we see elsewhere.

This isn't a simple issue, and it doesn't have a simple solution.

There is more to be learned before anyone can tell if this is a harm or a help to the kid. is also something I said, but for some reason you extracted one paragraph to throw your straw man at.

It is not dialog I'm replying to, it is purely deceptive rhetoric.

What's your solution?

[rwguinn]

Miley Cyrus
(Hanna Montana)